H.R.3003 - Restore M–44 Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R. 3003, the "Restore M-44 Act," aims to rescind a memorandum of understanding (MOU) related to wildlife damage management and to reverse restrictions on the use of M-44 sodium cyanide ejector devices. Specifically, it directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to rescind MOU BLM-MOU-HQ230-2023-05. The bill also seeks to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase, deploy, and train third parties on the use of M-44 devices, overriding a previous directive that prohibited such activities.
This bill effectively removes restrictions placed on the use of M-44 devices for wildlife management. It also eliminates the requirement to provide congressional committees with updates on the implementation of the directive prohibiting the use of these devices.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on April 24, 2025, and referred to the Committees on Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this bill would be the reinstatement of M-44 devices as a tool for wildlife damage management. This could lead to more effective control of certain wildlife populations, particularly predators that threaten livestock.
However, it could also result in unintended consequences, such as accidental poisoning of non-target species and potential environmental contamination. The rescission of the reporting requirement also reduces congressional oversight of the program.
Potential Benefits
- Potentially more effective control of predator populations, reducing livestock losses for farmers and ranchers.
- Increased flexibility for the Department of Agriculture in managing wildlife damage.
- Reduced administrative burden by eliminating the reporting requirement to congressional committees.
- May lead to decreased costs associated with wildlife damage management.
- Could prevent overpopulation of certain species, leading to a healthier ecosystem.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Risk of accidental poisoning of non-target species, including pets and endangered animals.
- Potential environmental contamination from sodium cyanide and sodium fluoroacetate.
- Reduced transparency and congressional oversight of the M-44 program.
- Ethical concerns regarding the use of lethal methods for wildlife control.
- Potential negative impact on public perception of wildlife management practices.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's primary focus is on directing the executive branch (specifically, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture) to take certain actions. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress, implying that Congress has the authority to direct the executive branch through legislation. The bill does not appear to infringe on any specific constitutional rights or protections.
However, the lack of reporting requirements could be viewed as a potential reduction in transparency and accountability, which some might argue is contrary to the spirit of open government. The bill itself does not appear to violate any specific provision of the Constitution.
It is within the power of Congress to pass laws directing the executive branch, and this bill appears to fall within that purview.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).